5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv. The first applicant is the wife of the second applicant.
6.  On 9 October 2002 the police seized from the applicants’ home tax labels and bank notes worth approximately 10,000 euros (EUR). An expert opinion established that the labels and the bank notes were counterfeit.
7.  Subsequently, devices for the production of false identity papers were also found in the applicants’ flat.
8.  On 9 October 2002 the second applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. On 11 October a prosecutor ordered his 72-hour detention with a view to bringing him before a court.
9.  On 11 October 2002 the second applicant was charged on two counts: firstly that he had, in complicity with others, counterfeited state securities, and secondly that he had had counterfeit securities and counterfeit bank notes in his possession.
10.  On 14 October 2002 the second applicant was brought before the Plovdiv District Court, which remanded him in custody, finding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed criminal offences and a risk of him re-offending. Upon appeal, on 22 October 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision.
11.  During his detention, the second applicant, who did not have a criminal record, lodged four requests for release. The first two were dismissed in court decisions of 21 January and 29 April 2003. The courts found that the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question persisted and that the charges were factually and legally complex. Furthermore, they found that there was a risk of him reoffending or absconding because he had apparently been part of an organised criminal group and also since he had been found in possession of a large quantity of counterfeit bank notes and of materials for the production of false identity papers.
12.  The courts dismissed the second applicant’s arguments that he needed to support his family financially and that the first applicant was seriously ill, pointing out that he had not adduced evidence about his family’s financial situation and that the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for public care for the children of detained persons, and also that the first applicant had received adequate treatment and her illness did not warrant his release. The courts also found that the length of the second applicant’s detention was not unreasonable because domestic law provided for a one-year limit on the duration of pre-trial detention in cases like his, which had not been exceeded.
13.  In May 2003 the prosecution dropped the charge against the second applicant of having counterfeited state securities acting in complicity with others. The proceedings continued only with respect to the charge of possession of counterfeit items, an offence carrying a potential sentence of up to eight years’ imprisonment.
14.  The second applicant’s third and fourth requests for release were dismissed on 29 July and 10 October 2003.
15.  The courts affirmed that there was still a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence he had been charged with. They acknowledged that there was no risk of him absconding but found that he might reoffend as he was charged with a “serious” offence and had apparently been part of an organised criminal group. The courts found again that the length of his detention was not unreasonable because the one-year time-limit provided for in domestic law had not been exceeded.
16.  On 14 October 2003 the second applicant was released on bail by order of the prosecution.
17.  The investigation against him continued until February 2004 when he and four alleged accomplices were indicted. The course of the proceedings after that is unknown. During the investigation the prosecution authorities questioned numerous witnesses, commissioned expert opinions and collected evidence.
18.  Between 9 October 2002 and 14 October 2003 the second applicant was kept in a cell at the Regional Investigation Service in Plovdiv where the living conditions were poor and the food provided was allegedly inadequate.
19.  The two applicants corresponded actively following the second applicant’s arrest. The second applicant corresponded also with his children, his mother and a close friend of his.